Suh is raring to go, standing up. Dunn is looking at Young's right foot. We're waiting for a beefy security guard to find the interpreter.

The interpreter hustles in with her purse and a drink.

[MORE]

Mr. Suh: we met and confirmed. We don't have the doucments the witnesses is referring to, what we have is inadequate.

The EDFs allow the kind of views the witness is talking about; you can zoom in and look. The ones we have do not have resolving power to resolve these?

BRUNET: do these have enough resolving power for this witness to answer the question?

SUH: this document doesn't have the resolution, compared to the one Dr. Brenna had, it's a different scale entirely.

BRUNET: that's you opinion as counsel. If you show it the witness, can't she make her own judgement?

YOUNG: we just heard they never got this. They got the files with Dr. Botres report. The panel could not have been more clear to the parties that if they wanted instructions to Botre, they should do that. When they were all in paris, she was accepting instructions from them there.

The truth is that they didn't get the documents, it's that we got the documents, but they are not enlarged the way we want. If they wanted an enlarger 44/45 trace, they should have asked Botre to print in that format. And if they had that, they'd be happy now. Botre was more than willing to process the data anyway they wanted. If they had particular problems with this handful of internal standard, they could have asked for those particular ion traces to be enlarged. Or for all to be enlarged.

If you note that for the ion traces from the B sample, those are larger than the ones in the A sample. That's where Brenna's picture yesterday came from. If they wanted an enlarged version to look at every single ion trace with every peak, they had every opportunity to get the data processed that way.

SUH: We need to respond to that. The process is not as simple as mr. young described. the process to pull out the peaks is very time consuming. It would take weeks to pull out the data. We got these on May 5. We asked on Feb 5th. We were told we couldn't have them, because we'd tamper with them.

Campbell: you asked the question of the witness, and the response surprised you?

SUH: No. we believe there is no justification for the internal standard being out of range in the sample.

Campbell: I heard the exchange that she claimed matrix, you asked how, and she mentioned the 44/45, and you seemed surprised.

SUH: I'm surprised she referred to a document that we don't have.

Other attorney: GDG00942 would have sufficed. That was acknowledged.

SUH: We do not have the document in the way referenced by this witness. We have been asking for that ability, but have been getting documents without that resolving power.

BRUNET: Let's look at 00942. The bottom chromatogram is in the lab pack?

SUH: yes.

BRUNET: the top graph was not provided in the original lab pack? though this is reprocessed

SUH: we aren't getting reproducibility with this. What we have is the reprocessed chromatogram of USADA 164.

BRUNET: you got results, and you also got the top graph on reprocessing. When they were reprocessed, your expert was there.

SUH: yes.

BRUNET: you are saying this graph as provided isn't enough for your or the technican to offer an opinion?

SUH: sorry, we didn't not get the EDFs in time to prepare to understand these...

BRUNET: We don't have knowledge of time restrictions of EDF

SUH: From start of reprocessing to the start of hearing, we don't have time to analyse.

BURNET: This top graph is not precise enough?

SUH: With the EDF's you can look at greater detail.

BRUNET: was there indication expert on site was restricted from getting more precise sections?

SUH: Restriction was time. We asked for the ability to do this.

BRUNET: Resolved by having the expert there.

Campbell: can we resolve this by going to the UCLA lab to look at the data.

SUH: we could do it here. Dr. Davis has the software here to run.

BARNETT: they are not happy with the instructions they gave to Dr. Botre.

YOUNG: [slowly] the piece of what said, was the suggestion that Dr. Davis couldn't have asked for this while in paris because it would take weeks and weeks and week.s It would not have taken weeks. It's a chromatogram of one of the B samples GDC009888

we had a process we went through where everyone went to a great deal of effort, everybody went to paris, they had a chance to have them reprocessed any say. If they wanted the a's as big as the b's they could have asked.

It makes no sense now on the fly to have someone blow up on the fly this data.

Campbell: my problem, is that the need was a response by a witness. How would Mr. Suh have predicted the future to predict a need for this data?

YOUNG: if he knew he needed it, his expert had every chance. If the witness says she can look and resolve that's fine, or if not, that's fine.

BARNETT: We discussed this on the April hearing, the discussion of C13

SUH: the chromatogram YOUNG used as an example is good. This one is not entirely visible in the mass 44/45 scan. We cannot predict anyone would would ever say about these peaks. It would not be reasonable to blow up every single peak. I'm sorry if we're not clear.

WE REST WITH THIS WITNESS.

[ Bowers sits down with a smug expression. SUH seemed thrown off ]

RECESS for 5 minutes for YOUNG to prepare.

Mongongu didn't say a word, but the interpreter was relaying all the above to her.

Just for the record, my reference to being game for swinging episodes could be open to misinterpretation. I was not referring to the free exchange of sexual acts, OK !. I was referring to the rather more mundane act of swinging punches of true and moral substance. I'm a good(ish) boy !

Total Poindexter Website Prize: to the fabulous geniuses over at trustbutverify, who not only are perhaps the most impassioned defenders of Floyd Landis' virtue beyond only the boy himself, but actually seem to understand the detailed scientific arguments they put out that the rest of us (well, me) are too stupid to even coherently summarize. Floyd, you better be innocent, or you owe these folks a *major* freakin' apology! (racejunkie)

"Who does awards for blogs? I sense a nomination is in order." (Carlton Reid, of BikeBiz)

"Hands-down champion of full-and I mean full-coverage of this hearing is the blog Trust But Verify. You'll have to have excellent background knowledge of the issues, and wade through page after page of detail to get to anything interesting, but it's raw and unfiltered and all there. The guy who runs the site, a cycling fan from Northern California, began casually providing a clearinghouse for Landis case news nearly 10 months ago, and now he has the haunted look of a man whose life has been hijacked and wants it back. (Loren Mooney, co-author of Positively False, at Bicycling)

"if you want the latest news on the Floyd Landis case, Trust but Verify is the go-to site. The author is biased in favor of Floyd (so am I) but the reporting is neutral and comprehensive." (12string musings)

About Me

About Us (Admissions)

TBV is personally biased towards Floyd. I think it'll be a better world if he proves his innocence, and some inquisitors meet their own just ends. Interspersed between daily link roundups are pieces of commentary slanted towards understanding what will prove innocence in the discipline proceeding, and what will rehabilitate his reputation in the public eye. Make of them what you will. Agreement with me is not required, though I am right.